Dallas shooting!

Respectfully I think you are going a bit overboard with your extreme scenarios.

Like I said though departments do have policies / guidelines that govern the weapons / weapons type officers can carry and use.

Some extreme examples given ignores that fact. As an example while Dallas pd had access to C4 their guidelines did not allow swat to use that item in
that manner without approval by the chain of command (in this case the Chief). That will also apply to duty weapons (hand guns / rifles / automatic
weapons) as well. Even then restrictions will apply in terms of department. For instance SWAT teams ive dealt with have access to fully automatic
weapons however rank and file officers do not have access to them and are prohibited from using them.

Respectfully you are trying to compare unrealistic scenarios to A. The shooting and B. a scenario where an individual is using a motor vehicle that is
inconsistent with the acceptable legal use of one.

You misunderstand. My point is, if true that any LEO can kill anyone in any manner prior to an arrest, then all bets are off. My example was more of a
cop running a jaywalker over with his car to stop the 'crime'. Not that a citizen was doing it.

And that by your argument, then LEOs could tool around in helos gunning down anyone for misdemeanors. After all, it's not 'due process' until the
cuffs go on, that lets you do anything, right? By your argument.

The point being, there are spectacularly ridiculous 'deterrents' a LEO can use, if your statement is true. Either it's not true, or it needs fixing,
now, because all that stands between the whims of some LEO and the citizens they purport to protect is how they're feeling at the moment. And how
'creative' they are.

When a person is involved in a life or death scenario, whether police or civilian, any item can be lawfully used as a weapon. Using a weapon / item
against a suspect who is no longer a threat can violate the persons civil rights. Law Enforcement is required, by SCOTUS rulings, to use the least
amount of force possible and to deescalate as quickly as possible. Continuing a use of force against a suspect who is no longer a threat moves from
justified resistance to active assault against the suspect, which in turn can become a civil rights violation.

This, right here, is the crux of what's bothering me about the entire C4 situation. By definition, he was not shooting at you, just not negotiating.
He was not a threat. He would have become one if he left the place where he was at, but at that time he was no longer actively attacking, he was just
sitting there writing 'rb' on the wall for some reason. Annoying the DPD, after killing some of them. Which is what this really boils down to.

It's all well and good to say, 'well, we killed him already, bfd, we can do what we like, sue me'. But if it's constantly getting down to that, then
if it's true that you can do whatever you like whenever you like up to the moment the cuffs go on then you're going to find that is one of those
things that mystify you as to why people want to shoot cops.

And you need to be restrained. As long as it was one of those things you could have in your pocket for a useful tool in a rare situation, then it's
one thing, but 'let's get creative and figure out a neat way to kill someone holed up in a parking lot' starts looking bad. 'getting creative' as to
killing people as a LEO is not a virtue.

A police action that is taken that ends in the death of a suspect during a crime in progress is not a due process violation.

Then police can do whatever they feel like. Burning to death, impalement, decapitation, poison gas, acids, garroting, the sky's the limit. During a
crime. Which could be, say, a misdemeanor. 'Sue me' isn't a valid redress after the fact. Note that I'm taking it to a sort of limit here but up to
now, other than the occasional 'whoopsie' intentional burning to death of the 'perp', or the occasional 'accidental' riddling of someone following
what someone thought was a gunshot, you guys have generally kept obvious execution of people in your pocket, but now you're starting to push the line
a bit.

Why? If it's not on a forbidden list, the sky's the limit during a crime, by your argument.

Which is the point I'm making, but you've got your bat-shield up wildly trying not to acknowledge it.

Blowing people up with C4 using a robot who are not actively shooting but are just holed up and not negotiating would have been 'an extreme scenario'
last month. Now it's not. What will strike you guys fancy NEXT time? A bit of chlorine? Some napalm?

Where does that end? What's the limit on it? Are you really saying, and believing, that LEOs should be able to anything, without limit, during a
crime? And if us peons don't like it, sue you?

What I'm saying is that if that is in fact the truth, then we're all subject to your whims at any particular encounter. You probably won't understand
that doesn't fill me with happiness or confidence. Or trust.

eta: I think my queasiness with this whole issue is the 'active threat' part. Had the guy been inaccessible on a roof shooting, and they C4-botted
him, it would have been a high-five moment for creativity. Doing it under the guise of negotiating with no active threat was dishonorable and
contemptible, and makes cops look like treacherous idiots. It's more a #-stain on everyone who wears the uniform than a high-five moment, IMHO. Sort
of the way I feel when you see people in uniforms tossing puppies off cliffs and recording it.

And we both know they did it because he killed some cops. Had he shot a few indigents from the bad side of town, I would not bet that the C4-bot would
have been used.

Cops and civilians are only allowed to kill for self defense or defense of other people. They will be charged and convicted of murder or manslaughter
if a killing is found to be unlawful, ie not in self defense or defense of other people. They cannot go round executing people if they feel like it.
However as we've seen some are now getting caught out by cameras.
The C4 guy was a clear threat, he had already killed, was armed and anyone attempting to arrest him would face a deadly threat. He was told to
surrender and had a chance to do this. Police decided to kill him rather than expose officers to potential death attempting to arrest him. A court
would certainly rule lawful killing and prosecutors wouldn't even bother bringing charges. Shooting unarmed suspects in the back running away however
is a different story and is unlawful.
Where it gets murky is where cops shoot and kill and self defense is borderline or non existent and they get off. Justice is not seen to be done and
the courts can be biased or seen to be biased.

Shooting unarmed suspects in the back running away however is a different story and is unlawful.

How about someone being pinned down long enough to conduct several rounds of negotiations, then just deciding 'f it' and blowing them up? Medals for
everyone!

Where it gets murky is where cops shoot and kill and self defense is borderline or non existent and they get off...

Who was being shot at when the guy was talking to negotiators? The shooting was over. Which person can you point at and say 'that person's life was in
danger when we sent in the c4 to end the threat to that person's life'?

Would you be willing to go in and arrest the guy? Or just wait and see if he decides to take a few more pot shots and kill some more people.
Usually it will be surrender now and give yourself up or we have no choice but to use deadly force to end the situation. All legal, whether you agree
with the law as it is is a different story. Bottom line there is a deadly threat and it must be stopped. No one would say the threat was gone. As long
as the guy is armed and refuses to give up there is a threat.

originally posted by: Bedlam
You misunderstand. My point is, if true that any LEO can kill anyone in any manner prior to an arrest, then all bets are off. My example was more of a
cop running a jaywalker over with his car to stop the 'crime'. Not that a citizen was doing it.

My point is no, police cannot kill anyone in any manner prior to an arrest. Running a person over would be a violation of Supreme Courts ruling
governing law enforcement's use of force in addition to state law and departmental policy.

originally posted by: Bedlam
And that by your argument, then LEOs could tool around in helos gunning down anyone for misdemeanors. After all, it's not 'due process' until the
cuffs go on, that lets you do anything, right? By your argument.

The point being, there are spectacularly ridiculous 'deterrents' a LEO can use, if your statement is true. Either it's not true, or it needs fixing,
now, because all that stands between the whims of some LEO and the citizens they purport to protect is how they're feeling at the moment. And how
'creative' they are.

Again no and you are not understanding what you are being told. Police use of force is governed by SCOTUs rulings. Using deadly force to effect a
misdemeanor arrest is not allowable. Now if during that misdemeanor crime the suspects commits a felony that places lives in danger then the situation
changes.

originally posted by: Bedlam
This, right here, is the crux of what's bothering me about the entire C4 situation. By definition, he was not shooting at you, just not negotiating.
He was not a threat. He would have become one if he left the place where he was at, but at that time he was no longer actively attacking, he was just
sitting there writing 'rb' on the wall for some reason. Annoying the DPD, after killing some of them. Which is what this really boils down
to.

He was a threat. He was armed, he already killed 5 and injured a total of 11, including civilians. He was still actively attacking.

Your comment about annoying the DPD is disgusting and ignorant beyond belief and no it does not boil down to that.

originally posted by: Bedlam
It's all well and good to say, 'well, we killed him already, bfd, we can do what we like, sue me'. But if it's constantly getting down to that, then
if it's true that you can do whatever you like whenever you like up to the moment the cuffs go on then you're going to find that is one of those
things that mystify you as to why people want to shoot cops.

Dallas PD did not kill him. They stopped the threat that he presented to officers and the public at large. He was given hours to end the situation
peacefully and chose not to. During the negotiations he made his intentions clear, including the threat to kill more officers.

originally posted by: Bedlam
And you need to be restrained. As long as it was one of those things you could have in your pocket for a useful tool in a rare situation, then it's
one thing, but 'let's get creative and figure out a neat way to kill someone holed up in a parking lot' starts looking bad. 'getting creative' as to
killing people as a LEO is not a virtue.

200 cops responded and only 12 discharged their duty weapons. They evacuated civilians using their own bodies as human shields. They negotiated for
over 2 hours. Only after all of that were they ordered to be creative and their creative possibility was signed off on by the Chief personally.

The police were restrained. The suspect was not, neither in his actions or intent.

Getting creative that ended the threat and no more civilians or police were killed was a good idea.

Yup - it applies to the court process. Due process does not apply during crimes in progress.

originally posted by: Bedlam
Then police can do whatever they feel like. Burning to death, impalement, decapitation, poison gas, acids, garroting, the sky's the limit. During a
crime. Which could be, say, a misdemeanor. 'Sue me' isn't a valid redress after the fact. Note that I'm taking it to a sort of limit here but up to
now, other than the occasional 'whoopsie' intentional burning to death of the 'perp', or the occasional 'accidental' riddling of someone following
what someone thought was a gunshot, you guys have generally kept obvious execution of people in your pocket, but now you're starting to push the line
a bit.

Once again you are wrong and you are intentionally being obtuse. If cops can do whatever they want why did negotiations occur at all? Why for 2+
hours? Why did SWAT have to be ordered to get creative? Why did SWAT have to get approval for their plan?

Officers are restricted, as I have explained, in what they can and cannot do and what weapons they can and cannot use.

originally posted by: Bedlam
Why? If it's not on a forbidden list, the sky's the limit during a crime, by your argument.

It is on a forbidden list and if that is what you took away from my argument then you did not read / understand my post.

originally posted by: Bedlam
Which is the point I'm making, but you've got your bat-shield up wildly trying not to acknowledge it.

Blowing people up with C4 using a robot who are not actively shooting but are just holed up and not negotiating would have been 'an extreme scenario'
last month. Now it's not. What will strike you guys fancy NEXT time? A bit of chlorine? Some napalm?

He was an active threat and told police he would continue to kill police. Just because you do not understand police procedure or the law does not mean
im trying not to acknowledge anything. Dallas PD using a robot with a bomb is the first time in the nations history a police force deployed a weapon
in that manner.

Your comment about napalm and chlorine is once again ignorant and ignores what you are being told.

originally posted by: Bedlam
Where does that end? What's the limit on it? Are you really saying, and believing, that LEOs should be able to anything, without limit, during a
crime? And if us peons don't like it, sue you?

I am saying each situation is unique and when it comes to public safety from an active threat decisions will be made that will fall in line with
SCOTUS rulings, Federal law, State law and departmental policy.

originally posted by: Bedlam
What I'm saying is that if that is in fact the truth, then we're all subject to your whims at any particular encounter. You probably won't understand
that doesn't fill me with happiness or confidence. Or trust.

And you are apparently not understanding what you are being told about police operations, SCOTUs rulings, federal law and State law.

originally posted by: Bedlam
eta: I think my queasiness with this whole issue is the 'active threat' part. Had the guy been inaccessible on a roof shooting, and they C4-botted
him, it would have been a high-five moment for creativity. Doing it under the guise of negotiating with no active threat was dishonorable and
contemptible, and makes cops look like treacherous idiots. It's more a #-stain on everyone who wears the uniform than a high-five moment, IMHO. Sort
of the way I feel when you see people in uniforms tossing puppies off cliffs and recording it.

And we both know they did it because he killed some cops. Had he shot a few indigents from the bad side of town, I would not bet that the C4-bot would
have been used.

He was a threat and the police took an action to end that threat.

True or False -
He actively shot and killed police and civilians - True
He continued exchanging gun fire during negotiations? True
Negotiations to end the incident lasted over 2+ hours - True
He threatened to kill more officers during negotiations? - True
He taunted the police during negotiations? True
He lied to police during negotiations? - True

The term is called totality of circumstances and when you take everything that occurred, from start to finish, it factors in to a course of action. In
this case that course of action led do his own death.

originally posted by: Bedlam
How about someone being pinned down long enough to conduct several rounds of negotiations, then just deciding 'f it' and blowing them up? Medals for
everyone!

The decision to use force was made once it became clear he was not negotiating in good faith and was going to continue killing people until he was
either A - stopped or B - Dallas / State of Texas / surrounding police agencies ran out of officers from his killing them.

originally posted by: Bedlam
Who was being shot at when the guy was talking to negotiators? The shooting was over. Which person can you point at and say 'that person's life was in
danger when we sent in the c4 to end the threat to that person's life'?

5 Officers killed, a total of 11 wounded, a civilian wounded and his refusal to surrender peacefully.

As I said its called totality of circumstances. You are looking at just one aspect while ignoring all the rest and you somehow thinking its
irrelevant. The use of C4 was a lawful act and was not something they rushed into.

But the shooting WASN'T over. He refused to negotiate, said he wanted to kill more people and then more gunfire was exchanged. So they felt it
necessary to take him out.

This was all stated in the press conference by Chief Brown.

So they only account of the last words of the dead man is that of the person/people who killed him.....It's right what they say, the winners get to
right the history..We'll never know what went on, what was said or what wasn't. That would only lead to more questions. The same way that Oswald being
alive would have lead to more questions. Only one man really knows the whats and the whys and the who's of that day, and he's dead.

Would you be willing to go in and arrest the guy? Or just wait and see if he decides to take a few more pot shots and kill some more people.

The guy's trapped himself. Like the coyotes said to the farm dog, you gotta come out SOMETIME.

and that dog is still capable of killing a wolf or two before they over come the dog.

In the case of the shooter he was still armed and said he would kill more cops. He also didn't have to come out. He could have waited for cops to try
and rush him, killing as many as possible before his threat was ended.

originally posted by: Bedlam
You misunderstand. My point is, if true that any LEO can kill anyone in any manner prior to an arrest, then all bets are off. My example was more of a
cop running a jaywalker over with his car to stop the 'crime'. Not that a citizen was doing it.

My point is no, police cannot kill anyone in any manner prior to an arrest. Running a person over would be a violation of Supreme Courts ruling
governing law enforcement's use of force in addition to state law and departmental policy.

So, there are limits on use of force. Great! How are they decided? Is it on paper, or does the captain or the scene commander get to set them on the
fly? You previously stated that

Law Enforcement, just as a civilian, can use what ever is appropriate in defending themselves and others. A use of force / subject resistance
control continuum does not spell out what weapons can and cannot be used. Departmental operating guidelines can define what weapons can and
cannot be used and in all cases those guidelines can be waived by command staff dependent on the situation.

which sounds awfully fluid to me, and without much if any of a boundary. And whatever is there can be changed at whim based on what seems convenient
at the time. At best, it's the 'whim of the command staff'.

Your comment about annoying the DPD is disgusting and ignorant beyond belief and no it does not boil down to that.

No, he wasn't. And we both know that was why.

200 cops responded and only 12 discharged their duty weapons. They evacuated civilians using their own bodies as human shields. They negotiated for
over 2 hours...

So, for two hours, he was pinned down and not shooting. Prior to the blowing up part.

Only after all of that were they ordered to be creative and their creative possibility was signed off on by the Chief personally.

Who gives him the authority to decide C4 was lawful? If I file a FOIA on DPD's explosives permit, and it doesn't specify 'blowing up people who won't
surrender', does that make the chief a felon? Again, can he decide to burn the guy to death? Poison him? Drown him? What's the boundary between 'this
is acceptable for a cop to do' and 'this is not'? If there effectively isn't one, then that's a problem.

The police were restrained.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. To clarify, if the cops have the ability to make the choice from column 'c', 'whatever we/command staff feel like', then they
need to be restrained. Not in the 'we made what seemed like a good choice' sense, but in the 'if we make this choice then we all go to prison' sense.
Legislatively barred. Judicially forbidden.

Getting creative that ended the threat and no more civilians or police were killed was a good idea.

He had no food or water. Letting him get really thirsty would end it as well. Or some tear gas.

Yup - it applies to the court process. Due process does not apply during crimes in progress.

That's not due process. It's a thing the government is not allowed to do.

Once again you are wrong and you are intentionally being obtuse. If cops can do whatever they want why did negotiations occur at all? Why for 2+
hours? Why did SWAT have to be ordered to get creative? Why did SWAT have to get approval for their plan?

Likely because they didn't consider it to be legal. They do now, though.

But the shooting WASN'T over. He refused to negotiate, said he wanted to kill more people and then more gunfire was exchanged. So they felt it
necessary to take him out.

This was all stated in the press conference by Chief Brown.

So they only account of the last words of the dead man is that of the person/people who killed him.....It's right what they say, the winners get to
right the history..We'll never know what went on, what was said or what wasn't. That would only lead to more questions. The same way that Oswald being
alive would have lead to more questions. Only one man really knows the whats and the whys and the who's of that day, and he's dead.

True. But Dallas Police Chief Brown has always operated under transparency and has said he will release the audio.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Dallas PD using a robot with a bomb is the first time in the nations history a police force deployed a weapon in that manner.

Your comment about napalm and chlorine is once again ignorant and ignores what you are being told.

Yeah, usually you guys lob pyrotechnic tear gas into flammable structures when it's a cop shooter. Up until now. This was a bit more blatant.

And again, point out the ignorance. You say 'we can use c4'. Why? Where does that line get drawn? If you can use c4, why not anything that's at hand
and the chief feels to be appropriate? Who says what's not allowed?

And you are apparently not understanding what you are being told about police operations, SCOTUs rulings, federal law and State law.

And what you're saying is that all it takes is for the chief or scene commander to decide to do (x) and it's ok, because due process doesn't apply
during a crime.

True or False -

The corrected version -

He actively shot and killed police - True
He taunted the police during negotiations? True
We had some C4 - True
We were out of incendiaries that would work in a concrete structure - True
The chief decided we could likely get away with blowing him up - True
Bob's your uncle - True

There were people still inside the college when it all went down. Assuming he actually was inside the college, and not in the garage, I wonder if
these students heard anything between the negotiator and the shooter.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.